Dear Editor:
Re: If it's not coal, it will be canola on the docks, The Record, Sept. 25.
Don Hauka's article on Fraser Surrey Docks' coal expansion plan mentions that there are other, much bigger, coal terminal proposals in the U.S. But he doesn't mention that the U.S. proposals are not "done deals" either. They also face stiff local opposition, for the same reasons as in B.C. Several proposals have been rejected. So the implied excuse: "if we don't do it, someone else will" is false.
At the national level, the U.S. is turning away from burning coal to reduce its carbon emissions. China too is stepping up regulations and banning new coal plants, to reduce pollution in its major industrial areas. And Canada is joining the global anti-mercury pollution treaty (coal burning is the number 1 source of global mercury emissions).
For many reasons: environment, economic and health, the time has come to say "no" to exporting coal. Not to exporting everything, just coal. The Americans have done it. We can, too. There are jobs and revenues to be had in shipping, without handling the lowest-grade, lowest-value, most poisonous example of the 18th-century fuel that is cooking our planet.
To their credit, Fraser Surrey Docks admits that they could easily be handling something else (canola) instead of coal. So why are we even still considering coal? Bring on the canola!
Karl Maier, New Westminster
